Subject: [Json] JSON files in old-time DOS 8.3 file system, proposed extension "JON".

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 09:04:09 +0200 (CEST)

Dear IETF,

In the embedded computing community it is common to use the FAT file
system in primitive ways (for space/resource reasons). Hence I need to
obey the old-time 8.3 file names.

In RFC7159 the file extension of a file containing JSON data is specified
to be ".json", obviously one letter to long for my needs.

I wonder if it would be worthwhile to specify the file extension ".JON"
for old FAT file systems?  I realize that this problem will eventually go
away, but probably not for a good many years.

Best regards,
Baard Nossum, +47 92409073

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 May 2017 11:43:41 -0400

On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 3:04 AM, <[email-masked]> wrote:

> away, but probably not for a good many years.

I think "JSN" would be better because more recognizable (cnsnnts r mr
rcgnzbl thn vwels).  In OS/8, a good extension would be JN, to avoid
collision with JS for JavaScript.

-- 
John Cowan          http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan        [email-masked]
It was dreary and wearisome.  Cold clammy winter still held sway in this
forsaken country.  The only green was the scum of livid weed on the dark
greasy surfaces of the sullen waters.  Dead grasses and rotting reeds loomed
up in the mists like ragged shadows of long-forgotten summers.
        --LOTR, "The Passage of the Marshes"

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 May 2017 12:16:19 -0400

​If you are doing retro computing then you shouldn't be using JSON at all.

​

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 11:43 AM, John Cowan <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>
>

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 May 2017 17:41:48 -0400

Back in the day I worked in the HEP community. One of the constraints on
writing code for many experiments was that it had to run on CERNVM which
was limited to eight letter variables due to the linker and compiler being
obsolete.

At the time pretty much every other FORTRAN compiler/linker could handle 32
character variables. The constraint was having real impact on code quality.

I think that this is one of those instances where the IETF as a standards
body should set a precedent and tell people to just fix their systems
rather than suggest fixes for something that would be better left to die.
8.3 letter filenames were made obsolete in Windows 95. The FAT filesystem
is incompatible with the vast majority of storage media made today.

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 4:39 PM, <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Dear Mr. Hallam-Baker,
>
> Like it or not, many embedded devices have the perhaps unfortunate
> combination of a FAT file system and an Ethernet MAC. You may think that
> qualifies as "retro computing", I could not possibly comment.
>
> It is no problem for me to name a file "SOMETHNG.TXT" and let it in fact
> describe json objects. But because JSON is an open-standard file format I
> find it advantageous that it should have a distinct file extension, hence
> my proposal. ".JSN" is a good proposal, (fr prhps bvs rsns), the exact
> extension is a minor matter.
>
> Respectfully,
> Baard Nossum
>
>
> > â€‹If you are doing retro computing then you shouldn't be using JSON at
> > all.
> >
> > â€‹
> >